2. Theoretical Background: Misty Indicators
3. Methodological Approach
4. The Development of the Indicator Policy Fact Sheets
|Name of Indicator/Index||Domestic Material Consumption (DMC)|
|Year||2001 (first methodological report)/annually/2013|
|created/frequency/last publication||Last report using DMC (sustainable development in the EU—2013 monitoring report of the EU sustainable development strategy) is available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/|
|Brief description||DMC is a measure of the use of natural resources. DMC is defined as the annual quantity of raw materials extracted from the domestic territory of an economy plus all physical imports minus all physical exports. DMC is used as a proxy for the indicator “raw material consumption” (RMC), which is currently under development (providing the most accurate picture on resource use because it “corrects” imports and exports of products with the equivalent amount of domestic extraction of raw materials that was needed to manufacture the respective traded good). Both DMC and RMC are measures of environmental pressures exerted by humans on the environment.|
|Country coverage||EU 27, plus Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and many other countries, like Japan and the USA, and developing countries of South America and Asia|
|Method of presentation||Resource productivity in comparison to GDP and DMC, EU-27, 2000–2013, (index: year 2000 = 100). Source: Eurostat. |
The resource productivity (RP) is the ratio of the volume of gross domestic product (GDP) over DMC. RP in the EU rose almost continuously between 2000 and 2011 by about 20%. DMC may be presented in many other ways to reveal time development (trend), international comparison, per capita values, etc.
|Indicator factors from a policy perspective||Over the past 13 years, DMC was not often a topic of major newspaper articles; however, the interest of media has remarkably increased. |
DMC (similarly RMC) is a key indicator for the assessment of sustainable consumption and production (making consumption more sustainable means improving the quality of life, while using fewer natural resources, such as raw materials, energy, land and water). Besides the absolute reduction of consumption, all countries monitor their resource productivity (RP)—the amount of gross value added (measured as GDP) that an economy generates by using one unit of material (measured as DMC). RP (and thus DMC) is a leading indicator for the achievement of a “resource-efficient Europe” initiative of the Europe 2020 strategy.
The indicator may be readily used for target setting (some countries aim at absolute decoupling (GDP growth < RP growth; others stipulate that RP will increase by 60% by 2015, etc.)
|Indicator factors from a scientific perspective||DMC has a large analytical potential: it is used for trend analyses, international comparisons, efficiency calculations (decoupling analysis), etc. It has been combined with an input-output analysis and life cycle analysis to get information on the impact of our consumption. Recently, a more correct metric, RMC (based on the DMC method), for measuring an economy’s material throughput has been developed.|
Since 2001, in total, 54 scientific and expert publications devoted to DMC appeared:
|Indicator factors from a public perspective||DMC is an indicator that has been developed primarily for politicians (at all levels) and policy makers (together with other material flow analysis-based indicators), but other practitioners may be among its target group (mining industry, construction, metallurgy, etc.). So far, it has not been used much for communication with the public. However, if appropriately interpreted, it has great potential to contribute to public debate, e.g., on resource (energy and material) security, a hot topic particularly during global economic and political crises. Furthermore, decoupling analysis (“to do more with less”) is a comprehensible concept with a nice graphical presentation. |
Since 2001, in total, 22 scientific newspaper and expert publications devoted to DMC appeared:
5. Results: Indicator Policy Fact Sheets
5.1. General Categories
5.1.1. The “Brief Description” Category
5.1.2. The “Style of Presentation” Category
5.2. Analytical Categories
5.2.1. The “Indicator Factors from a Policy Perspective” Category
5.2.2. The “Indicator Factors from a Scientific Perspective” Category
5.2.3. The “Indicator Factors from a Public Perspective” Category
Conflicts of Interest
- UN. Earth Summit Agenda 21. The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio; United Nations Department of Public Information: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Waheed, B.; Khan, F.; Veitch, B. Linkage-Based Frameworks for Sustainability Assessment: Making a Case for Driving Force-Pressure-State-Exposure-Effect-Action (DPSEEA) Frameworks. Sustainability 2009, 1, 441–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tasaki, T.; Kameyama, Y.; Hashimoto, S.; Moriguchi, Y.; Harasawa, H. A survey of national sustainable development indicators. Int. J. Sust. Dev. 2010, 13, 337–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Happaerts, S. Sustainable development in Quebec and Flanders: Institutionalizing symbolic politics? Can Public Adm. 2012, 4, 553–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahl, A.L. Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 17, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, 3rd ed.; UN Statistical Division: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Compendium of OECD Well-Being Indicators; OECD: Paris, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- EEA. Guidelines for EEA Indicator Profile Review and Update. 2012. Available online: http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/ (accessed on 15 September 2014).
- Eurostat. Guide to Statistics in European Commission Development Co-Operation—Sustainable Development Indicators; Eurostat: Luxembourg, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Stiglitz, J.; Sen, A.; Fitoussi, J.P. The Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress Revisited. Reflections and Overview; Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress: Paris, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- UN. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Central Framework; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Jesinghaus, J. Measuring European environmental policy performance. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 17, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; Kubiszewski, I.; Giovannini, E.; Lovins, H.; McGlade, J.; Pickett, K.E.; Ragnarsdóttir, K.V.; Roberts, D.; de Vogli, R.; Wilkinson, R. Development: Time to leave GDP behind. Nature 2014, 505, 283–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Garnåsjordet, P.A.; Aslaksen, I.; Giampietro, M.; Funtowic, S.; Ericson, T. Sustainable Development Indicators: From Statistics to Policy. Environ. Policy Gov. 2012, 22, 322–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyder, A.; Corluka, A.; Winch, P.J.; el-Shinnawy, A.; Ghassany, H.; Malekafzali, H.; Lim, M.-K.; Mfutso-Bengo, J.; Segura, E.; Ghaffar, A. National policy-makers speak out: Are research giving them what they need? Health Policy Plann. 2011, 26, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sébastien, L.; Bauler, T. Use and influence of composite indicators for sustainable development at the EU-level. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 35, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gudmundsson, H. The policy use of environmental indicators—Learning from evaluation research. J. Transdisciplinary Environ. Stud. 2003, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Hildén, M.; Rosenström, U. The Use of Indicators for Sustainable Development. Sustan. Dev. 2008, 16, 237–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morrone, M.; Hawley, M. Improving environmental indicators through involvement of experts, stakeholders, and the public. Ohio J. Sci. 1998, 98, 52–58. [Google Scholar]
- Parsons, W. Scientists and politicians: The need to communicate. Public Underst. Sci. 2001, 10, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinberg, A.; Cooper, C.L.; Weinberg, A. Workload, stress and family life in British Members of Parliament and the psychological impact of reforms to the working hours. Stress Med. 1999, 15, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hak, T.; Moldan, B.; Dahl, A. Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, R.K.; Murtyb, H.R.; Guptac, S.K.; Dikshitc, A.K. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9, 189–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karlsson, S. Meeting conceptual challenges. In Sustainability Indicators: Scientific Assessment; Hak, T., Moldan, B., Dahl, A., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; pp. 27–48. [Google Scholar]
- Giesselman, M.; Hilmer, R.; Siegel, N.A.; Wagner, G.G. Alternative Wohlstandsmessung: Neun Indikatoren können das Bruttoinlandsprodukt ergänzen und relativieren. DIW Wochenber. 2013, 80, 3–12. [Google Scholar]
- Hák, T.; Janoušková, S.; Saamah, A.; Seaford, C.; Mahony, S. Review Report on Beyond GDP Indicators: Categorisation, Intensions and Impacts. Available online: http://www.czp.cuni.cz/czp/images/stories/Projekty/BRAINPOoL_Review_report_Beyond-GDP_indicators.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2014).
- Bell, S.; Eason, K.; Frederiksen, P. A Synthesis of the Findings of the POINT Project. 2011. Available online: http://www.point-eufp7.info/storage/POINT_synthesis_deliverable%2015.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2014).
- Parris, T.M.; Kates, R.W. Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2003, 28, 559–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hak, T.; Kovanda, J.; Weinzettel, J. A method to assess the relevance of sustainability indicator: Application to the indicator set of the Czech Republic’s Sustainable Development Strategy. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 17, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wesselink, B.; Bakkes, J.; Best, A.; Hinterberger, F.; ten Brink, P. Measurement beyond GDP. Available online: http://assets.wwfza.panda.org/downloads/beyond_gdp.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2015).
- Thiry, G.; Bauler, T.; Sébastien, L.; Paris, S.; Lacro, V. Characterizing Demand for “Beyond GDP”. Available online: http://ww.brainpoolproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/D2.1_BRAINPOoL_Characterizing_demand.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2014).
- Banks, G. Evidence-Based Policy Making: What is it? How Do We Get It? Productivity Commission: Canberra, Australia, 2009.
- DFID. Systematic Reviews in International Development: An Initiative to Strengthen Evidence-Informed Policy Making. 2012. Available online: http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/blog/view/199 (accessed on 15 September 2014).
- Whitby, A.; Seaford, C.; Berry, C. Beyond GDP -From Measurement to Politics and Policy. Available online: http://www.brainpoolproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/BRAINPOoL-Project-Final-Report.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2014).
- EC. Sustainable Development Indicators: Overview of Relevant FP-Funded Research and Identification of Further Needs in View of EU and International Activities. Available online: http://www.ieep.eu/assets/443/sdi_review.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2014).
- WB. Sustainable Development Projects & Programs. Available online: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/sustainabledevelopment/projects (accessed on 15 September 2014).
- Bell, S.; Morse, S. An analysis of the factors influencing the use of indicators in the European Union. Local Environ. 2011, 16, 281–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rey-Valette, H.; Laloe, F.; le Fur, J. Introduction to the key issue concerning the use of sustainable development indicators. Int. J. Sust. Dev. 2007, 10, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurostat. Getting messages across using indicators. In A Handbook Based on Experiences from Assessing Sustainable Development Indicators; Eurostat: Luxembourg, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Seideman, S. The Fundamental Problem of Policy Relevance. 2013. Available online: http://opencanada.org/features/blogs/roundtable/the-fundamental-problem-of-policy-relevance/ (accessed on 15 September 2014).
- Moere, A.V.; Purchase, H. On the role of design in information visualization. Inf. Vis. 2011, 10, 356–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Postrel, V. The Economics of Aesthetics. Available online: http://www.strategy-business.com/article/03313?gko=0173c (accessed on 15 September 2014).
- Swan, K.S.; Kotabe, M.; Allred, B.B. Exploring robust design capabilities, their role in creating global products, and their relationship to firm performance. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 2005, 22, 144–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means—End model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jesinghaus, J. Indicators: Boring statistics or the key to sustainable development? In Sustainability Indicators: Scientific Assessment; Hak, T., Moldan, B., Dahl, A., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; pp. 83–96. [Google Scholar]
- Rosling, H. Visual technology unveils the beauty of statistics and swaps policy from dissemination to access. Stat. J. IAOS 2007, 24, 103–104. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Better Life Index; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Paris, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- NTNU; CICERO. Carbon Footprint of Nations. Available online: http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/ (accessed on 15 September 2014).
- GFN. Footprint Calculators. Available online: http://ww.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/ (accessed on 15 September 2014).
- Hall, S. Indicators of Sustainable Development in the UK. In Proceedings of the Conference of European Statisticians, Fifty-Third Plenary Session, Geneva, Switzerland, 13–15 June 2005.
- Weiss, C.; Murphy-Graham, E.; Birkeland, S. An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluations affect D.A.R.E. Am. J. Eval. 2005, 26, 12–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hezri, A.A. Sustainability indicators system and policy processes in Malaysia: A framework for utilisation and learning. J. Environ. Manag. 2004, 73, 357–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rydin, Y.; Holman, N.; Wolff, E. Local Sustainability Indicators. Local Environ. 2003, 8, 581–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hezri, A.A.; Dovers, S.R. Sustainability indicators, policy, governance: Issues for ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 86–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rinne, J.; Lyytimäki, J.; Kautto, P. From sustainability to well-being: Lessons learned from the use of sustainable development indicators at national and EU level. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 35, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morse, S. Out of sight, out of mind. Reporting of three indices in the UK national press between 1990 and 2009. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 21, 242–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waas, T.; Hugé, J.; Block, T.; Wright, T.; Benitez-Capistros, F.; Verbruggen, A. Sustainability Assessment and Indicators: Tools in a Decision-Making Strategy for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2014, 6, 5512–5534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Rosenström, U. Exploring the policy use of sustainable development indicators: interviews with Finnish politicians. J. Transdiscipl. Environ. Stud. 2006, 5, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Ioppolo, G.; Cucurachi, S.; Salomone, R.; Saija, G.; Ciraolo, L. Industrial Ecology and Environmental Lean Management: Lights and Shadows. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6362–6376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deutz, P.; Ioppolo, G. From Theory to Practice: Enhancing the Potential Policy Impact of Industrial Ecology. Sustainability 2015, 7, 2259–2273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Findlay, S.S. Knowledge Brokers: Linking Researchers and Policy Makers. Available online: http://www.ihe.ca/documents/HTA-FR14.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2014).
- Cash, D.; Clark, W.C.; Alcock, F.; Dickson, N.M.; Eckley, N.; Guston, D.H.; Jager, J.; Mitchel, R.B. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8086–8091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).